
m> 



>cc 

\ OCX. 

:ccc 

l CIC 



=*- cc cere 
cc cccc 

CC OCT C 

cc cccr 

^C <HC 

cc c<c: 



ccr <:cr 
<cc: SfcV 



c C CXC CL-:c 
C f CCC g-.. -. 

C C<C C €^ <C 

c ccc c 5lt Jr 
^ < ccca^ 



5 cc 
c cc 



4SX4T4 



^«^ 






€.C_ C 

gC c 
CX C 

cc c 

CC 

C4< 

<33C t 

c<x: 

£%& 

CC c <f 

C< C <SC 



| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. $ 

1 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. § 



c CC c 
c c <c< <- 

c ceve 

< c cCc 
C C CC <C 

c <xccc 
<cc^ 



CC <C 

«c CC 
C cc 

C CC 
C CC 

Fg 



Tec 
: cc 



XMTC 



: cc cc c. 

C ( ; C C C C 

c( cc -cc. cr 

c c cc cc c 
c C c < C c 
c C CC CC - 






C ^ CC ; 



C «L < CCCjC c 



CC- c 
^c < 



cc«r 



A ( A C Cicc re 

C cVS QBQK <OC 



esc c< 



C «' € 



«qgc<S 

«GcCC 

<3CCc 



£ C -C 

& c<c 



C«0C< 



« 



^ c C 

c <x: «: 
c cc 
<c 



<<C<C 

" CCCC 

cc <C£ 

C<C<CC 
CC <o 
oc <cc 

C<C(CC 

c3g <SX 

c«Lc« 



■c 


<c 


: <C 


< 




<- ^ 


c 


c 


<T 


c 


c 


<c 


c 


c 


<c 


c 


c 


<sc 


c 


c«c 


<sr 




c 


^ 


c 


c 


<ac 






«c 

«cr 



«3C 



■. 


<_ 


LV 




<. 


cc< 


c 


C 


cc< 


c 

: 


< 


(C * 

c «3 C 


c 


CT<: 


<©<: 


c 


cc 


cc: 


c 


^3 


. c < 


c 


m 


: c ',-4 


<r 


o 


<: « 


c 


c< 


<2S? 


< c 


c 


c C 



C C*' 

' r ccu 

: cc c< 

r £'c:< 
cc 

*. cc:c 
j^-CCcv: 
< CXCcc 

v c cc c 

< c: co.c 
^XC c 

CC ' 
c^ct 

C^firt-< 
CX^CC 

CCc 






1 <?f 

«^c c<: 

ccc< 



ci 


. t* c 


; < 


■ C'Cl 


Ct 


v 


cc 




cc 




<c 


• ' c 


cc 


c c 


cc 


sT C 


cc 


cdiv 


<d 


CC < 



c ( c d<i 

c <C <CXc 

^.^c cc 



cc occcs . 



<5^ 

CC 



t:<c- 

3E 



* 



cc 
<c 

c< 

' c^ cr c< 

< c< , 

^S^ C-CcVfe 
CC C <c<7<k < 

d-<" *r 



c C«C3CC 

^CCOOLC . 

.<-. carter 
v (CCC 
.CC4C,CC 

c c 
c C<^ 

v (Tf C 

cc <<r c 



c <i 

^"CC: 
C" *- ^ 

r <cc 

C CI; 
L CCT ? 

«c <r<> 
«: c:c 






«1C c 

: <.<• c ^ 
ccc CO 



r<rc<: cc 

CCC CC 
jCCC CJC 



C «L « 

<gxc 



cic: cccc 



c^r «c 



*" 



/ 



rftS B 



EL 



-ffillHS 




REVIEW 



HON. CALEB BUTLER'S HISTORY 



ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS OF PEPPERELL. 



QJZW^D 



mm 



mmm 




©rutl) emit tyatatttx btnMcateb 



RE TIE W 



HON. CALEB BUTLER'S HISTORY 



ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS OF PEPPERELL. 



A COMMITTEE 

OP THE CHURCH OP CHRIST EST THAT PLACE. ' 



Pufilfetjelj ig ox'isex of tfj£ CfjurctJ* 




BOSTON: 

PRESS OF T. R. MARVIN, 24 CONGRESS STREET, 
1849. 



.0 



t 



* 



%<* 



TO THE PUBLIC. 

The Committee chosen to carry into effect the following vote of the 
church, namely : " Voted, That a Committee of Five be chosen to prepare a 
Review of Caleb Butler, Esq.'s History of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of Pep- 
perell, and of other documents, so far as they are thought to give a partial 
or perverted view of facts in relation to this church, and to Rev. James 
Howe, its late pastor, from his call and settlement, to 1848," — reported the 
following Review, which was adopted by the church, April 12th, and or- 
dered to be published. It is now, according to the direction of the same 
body, given to the public, dedicated to all candid and impartial judges of 
truth and justice, by 

DAVID ANDREWS, } 

NEHEMIAH CUTTER, 

SAMUEL FARRAR, 



ARNOLD HUTCHINSON, 
VRYLING SHATTUCK, 



I Committee 
of the Church. 



Pepperell, April 30, 1849. 



REVIEW. 



The essential qualifications of a historian are, — a full 
knowledge of his subject, an unprejudiced mind in view 
of the facts concerned, a wise selection of them, impar- 
tiality in the treatment of his subject, together with an 
ability to set it forth in a lucid and interesting manner. 

With the latter qualification, so far as it concerns the 
book in question, we have no concern. But, so far as this 
book claims to give a history of ecclesiastical matters in 
this place from the time specified, the violations of the 
previous principles are so many and so palpable — they so 
seriously affect the character of this church, and especially 
the moral integrity of its late worthy and esteemed pastor, 
Rev. Mr. Howe, as to call for some animadversion and 
correction. 

As prefatory to our task, we cannot forbear an expres- 
sion of our surprise, that a citizen of another town, in no 
way connected with this, volunteering to give us a history 
of our own affairs, should attempt, with all the feelings of 
a religious partisan, to meddle with the minute particulars 
of certain parochial questions and proceedings, which, but 
a short time since, had divided the community, and arrayed 
its members in hostile parties. Doubtless this instance is 
singular ; we never knew the like. A wise and judicious 
man would perceive at once, that he would be in the 
greatest danger of failing to do justice to his subject, 



and of injuring one party or the other equally concerned 
in his representations. Especially must this be so, when 
a man allows himself to rely upon ex parte and prejudiced 
statements. In cases like this, historians generally content 
themselves with giving some general statement of the 
facts, equally acceptable to all parties concerned. But Mr. 
Butler seems to have been restrained by no considerations 
of this kind. This course would not satisfy such an am- 
bition as his. He seems to have been determined to 
make a picture of the ecclesiastical affairs of this town, 
that should contain the minutice, and to give them a shad- 
ing that should reflect great credit upon " the more liber- 
ally inclined," or "the good people of Pepperell generally," 
as he denominates such in one place, and the greatest dis- 
credit upon all, who were not of these "good people." 
Excluded from that favored class, were Mr. Howe, and, 
as he allows, a "large majority of the church ; " yea, he 
might have learned, a majority to the very last responsible 
man, and likewise a very large majority of the religiously 
disposed people of the place, who adhered to him during 
all his trials with the town, or first parish, and who cher- 
ish his memory and his principles with the liveliest inter- 
est still. But the charity of our historian gathers within 
its sweep, as "good," all those, who find some other 
place more congenial to the cultivation of " their virtues," 
than any house of religious worship whatever. In execut- 
ing the plan which he proposed to himself, Mr. Butler 
certainly must have been " indebted to his imagination 
for his facts" — at least some of them, as we shall 
show, or he must have resorted to partial sources for 
them. We . fear that he indulged his feelings with 
respect to some others concerned. It is this partisan 
character of his work of which we complain ; — it is this 
which has imposed our unwelcome task upon us ; — it is 
this which has condemned his book, where the facts are 
known, and so well nigh banished it from the place. 



Were it not deemed important to do something to disabuse 
the minds of the unwary from the influence of such dis- 
torted representations as are found in this work, and for 
the correct information of future generations, we might 
remain silent, and suffer the very slight injury which 
such a book can do the living. But with a sense of duty 
to those who have not now the truth in the case, to the 
worthy but injured dead, and to those who shall come 
after us, we address ourselves to our task. 

Did we regard it as our province, we might animadvert 
severely upon the manner in which this writer trifles with 
the views of that holy and good man, the first pastor of 
this church, upon the agency of fallen spirits in promoting 
the dissensions of men, and the like ; the manner in which 
he talks of "the corruptions of the saints" in this place., 
in early times, on the question of locating their first place 
of worship ; and the witless story he chronicles concerning 
a street squabble on removing the timber from the first to 
the second location selected for the meeting-house. He 
even gives the names of the parties, which he brings into 
the encounter, as if to disgrace them to their inheritors, 
and then sends his book to such, to buy and read ! But 
he acknowledges he borrowed this story from " tradition." 
Would not wisdom have taught him there to leave it ? 
Such things are unworthy the proper dignity of a histo- 
rian. How shall we account for their introduction into a 
work bearing so honorable a title as that of a history ? 
Was it not an oversight, not to say an infirmity ? 

We stop not to dispute with this author upon the opin- 
ion he advances, that the Rev. Joseph Emerson, the first 
pastor of this church, " had more liberality and Christian 
charity, and less dogmatism and bigotry, than many of the 
New England clergy," nor to question the right of a gen- 
tleman of quite another profession, as it were ex cathedra, 
to denounce such men as Rev. Jonathan Edwards, calling 
their theology " unscriptural — absurd and contradictory 



dogmas" and such like. President Edwards's world-wide 
reputation, as a divine, a theologian and a metaphysician, 
cannot be injured by such a liberal bespattering of un- 
gracious epithets as the above. It is well ascertained, 
that Mr. Emerson's theology abated nothing from that of 
Edwards, Whitfield and kindred spirits, with whom he 
was in perfect sympathy, as has been already made known 
to the public, and, if needful, might still further be shown 
by giving extracts from his manuscripts. 

We are happy to find Mr. Butler so candid as to ac- 
knowledge that Mr. Emerson's successor, "in his the- 
ological opinions, probably differed but little from his 
predecessor." After this just concession, it is of very little 
moment what he conjectures of Mr. Bullard's " liberality," 
and of his " regrets" that parishes should be divided for 
the sake of religious opinion. Mr. Bullard was truly so 
"liberal" as to second heartily the movements of those, 
whom truth and a good conscience led, where, with " none 
to molest or make them afraid," they could hear the gospel 
preached in its simplicity and its purity. A few simple 
facts are worth more than many wishful surmisings. Six 
days before Mr. Bullard died, and as his last " act and tes- 
timony " in behalf of the gospel, he took an active part 
in ordaining a man over a Calvinistic church — so named 
distinctively at the time — composed of those recently 
separated from the old parish because of its degenerate 
faith. Another indisputable fact, to which a multitude of 
living witnesses can testify, is, that Mr. Bullard systemati- 
cally instructed the children of the town from " The 
Assembly's Shorter Catechism ;" a work, whose evan- 
gelical and Calvinistic character, we presume, every one 
will grant is sufficiently distinct. His custom was to 
devote a part of Saturday to this service, and rotate with 
the several schools in their order. Of his faith and 
practice, his son-in-law, J. Breck, Esq., of Boston, who 
was then a member of his church, writes as follows: — 



" There has been much said about Mr. Dullard's liberality. 
It is true he was a liberal man, but not in the sense the 
Unitarians would make it appear. I was a boarder in his 
family for the last eighteen months, and do not remember 
an exchange with a single Unitarian, unless Mr. Lawrence 
of Tyngsboro,' or some of the old clergy, were of that 
stamp. He had not exchanged with Dr. Thayer, [of Lan- 
caster,] for many years, nor with any of the young Unita- 
rians, or those of the modern stamp." Now these " young 
Unitarians, or those of the modern stamp," affect to honor 
the venerable dead by drawing him over to their side with 
their artful cords ; or, at least, by holding him at a re- 
spectable distance from Orthodoxy, so that it has been 
sagely declared, " if he had only lived long enough" he 
would have come quite over, and become not only almost, 
but altogether such as they are. We are happy in the 
fear, that their waiting would be somewhat like that of 
the rustic on the river bank, waiting for the river to flow 
by, that he might " pass over dry shod." Labitur el la- 
betur in eternum, — it flows on and will forever. What 
kind of honor is this, then, that is thus done the second 
minister of this place ? An attempt is made to pin a 
creed upon him, that he certainly did not usually exhibit. 
Truly he cannot be honored by such imputable inconsist- 
ency. Could the dead speak out, as these new claimants 
gather around his tomb, to pay their unwelcome offer- 
ings, would it not be to exclaim, " Save me from my 
friends!" 

But we pass to the main object of this Review, — an 
examination of Mr. Butler's statements, in relation to the 
settlement of the third minister of this town, the Rev. 
Mr. Howe, the conditions of that settlement, and his diffi- 
culties with the town, or old parish. He first represents 
the town as taking great precautions to procure a minister 
who would be liberal in the matter of exchanges, without 
regard to religious sentiment ; next, that Mr. Howe, on 



8 

the day of his ordination, through his ordaining council, 
from regard to the fears of certain remonstrants, that he 
might prove exclusive in his ministerial exchanges, made 
a solemn promise to his parishioners, that he would ex- 
change with all Congregational ministers indiscriminately. 
He then represents that Mr. Howe, overawed by "the 
authors and abettors of the exclusive system," violated 
that promise, and so became the guilty cause of rending 
asunder a hitherto united and harmonious community, and 
of producing all the evils consequent upon such a schism. 
We have been surprised at the coolness with which such 
serious charges are recorded in this book, and set up at a 
market price in the very faces of those who know their 
incorrectness. However, it requires not so much courage, 
after all, as certain other qualifications, to go into a tomb 
and call the dead hard names, and " lay many and griev- 
ous complaints against such, which they cannot prove." 
Dead men are not apt to harm any one, — a fact, which 
may have emboldened some champions in this kind of 
service. If a man possesses a certain amount of theo- 
logic spleen, he will be as well qualified, and as strongly 
tempted, to perform such an unenviable office, as any 
character whatever. Yet it is not very wise, nor char- 
itable, to indulge such a disposition as this. Could 
Mr. Butler think that the ignoble daring of some, much 
younger than himself in such kind of adventures, fur- 
nished him with an example which would justify him in 
forgetting even the good old heathen maxim, — " Nil 
mortuis, nisi bonum" — nothing concerning the dead, 
unless it be good, and of so wantonly violating a good 
man's grave ? To be able to plead a precedent, is by no 
means always a justification for an act. To show that 
one is only a partaker of another man's sin, lessens not 
his criminality. 

The paragraphs containing these serious charges and 
misrepresentations, are found on pages 320, 321 and 322, 



of Mr. Butler's book. They commence and continue 
on, with a little more than the usual positiveness and acri- 
mony of liberal writers, whenever they attempt to set 
forth the religious opinions or practices of evangelical 
Christians. The writer proceeds as follows, (p. 320.) 

" They [a large portion of the clergy of New England] had there- 
fore come to the determination not to exchange pulpit services with 
Arminians, Unitarians, and other liberal denominations of Christians ; 
denying them even the name of Christians, To this ' exclusive sys- 
tem,' as it has been called, which, with the relaxation from all legal 
obligation to support any religious instruction or public worship, about 
that time and since, has rent most of the towns and territorial parishes 
asunder, and set at variance Christian friends and neighbors, the Rev. 
Mr. Bullard, while living, and the good people of Pepperell generally, 
were strongly opposed. On the occasion therefore of settling a min- 
ister, caution was'taken to pursue such measures as should prevent 
the town and church, hitherto remarkable for their unanimity, from 
division. In selecting a council to assist in the ordination of their 
pastor elect, they took pastors and delegates from eleven congrega- 
tions, who were in favor of the exclusive system, and from nine who 
were more liberally inclined, intending, if possible, to be on terms of 
communion and fellowship with all regular Congregational churches 
and societies. As Mr. Howe's education and associations had been 
with the party favoring exclusiveness, some fears were entertained that 
he might be inclined to join with them in their measures." 

Here are the alleged precautions, liberal purposes and 
the fears of the town stated. What authority Mr. Butler has 
for asserting that the town, or " the good people generally " 
were so desirous of securing a " liberal " minister, is yet to 
come to light, unless he uses these general terms as a kind 
of modern privilege, applicable only to " the more liberally 
minded." It is not true that the " people generally" — 
not to say good, in the sense of this author — desired a 
Unitarian, but an Orthodox minister, as all their proceed- 
ings and votes show. A Unitarian candidate did preach a 
few Sabbaths, before Mr. Howe was presented to the 
people. They, however, let the Unitarian pass on, and 
chose Mr. Howe, knowing him to be evangelical in his 
sentiments, and educated at a sacred school, favoring 
" exclusiveness " in the Clvristian sense. A large ma- 
jority " earnestly desired his ordination," because his 
faith was their faith, and it was only a minority that 
2 



10 

wished to introduce a man of " another gospel/' new to 
the people of this town. 

But the writer proceeds with a very remarkable passage. 
The structure is remarkable, because its basis is like that 
of an inverted cone. It needs all its friends around it to 
hold it up. He says, — 

" In order therefore to prevent all misunderstanding on that point, 
[exclusive exchanges] some of the legal voters, to the number of sev- 
enty-nine, signed a remonstrance against the ordination of Mr. Howe, 
solely from apprehensions respecting exchanges, and laid it before the 
council on the day appointed for the ordination." 

We shall soon see whether this is a statement of facts 
as they really occurred. But we will proceed with the 

extract. 

" Whereupon [upon the fears and statements of the remonstrants 
respecting exchanges] the pastor elect was freely and fully interrogated 
on that point by the council, and he gave such assurances of his wil- 
lingness to exchange pulpits with each member of the council, and all 
neighboring ministers of regular standing of the Congregational order, 
that the remonstrants were satisfied and withdrew all objections. 
Mr. Howe was accordingly ordained." 

" For several of the first years of his ministry, there was general 
harmony between pastor and flock — the fulfillment of the promise being 
satisfactorily observed. But as exclusiveness became more strictly 
enforced by its authors and abettors, Mr. Howe was compelled either 
to violate his promise, or lose fellowship with the friends of that .system. 
He chose the former alternative. Upon this, his parishioners became 
dissatisfied, and communed with him," &c. " But he could not be pre- 
vailed with to return to his promised course in this matter. Whereupon 
a town meeting was held," and Mr. Howe, by vote, was excused 
from preaching. He and his friends " withdrew and formed a separate 
religious society. The town became thus divided." 

It will be observed from these extracts, that Mr. Butler 
makes the following representations : — that the opposition 
to Mr. Howe's settlement arose altogether from the fear 
that he would not adopt a liberal system of exchanges ; 
that the remonstrance against him had this solely in view ; 
that it was upon the presentation of this remonstrance 
and the apprehensions it embodied concerning exchanges, 
that the council were led to question Mr. Howe upon the 
subject, and to exact a promise of liberality from him, 
before they could ordain him; that, accordingly, Mr. Howe 
did make such a promise, which satisfied the remonstrants, 



11 

and prepared the way for the liberal men on the council 
to proceed to ordination; that after a fe vv years Mr. Howe 
was induced to break his promise, and " thus " he divided 
the town, and the sad consequences followed, which Mr. 
Butler had already detailed in like instances. All this is 
charged upon Mr. Howe, thus represented as a perfidious 
man and minister of Christy which is rather too serious a 
matter to pass unnoticed, if not true. We trust we shall 
satisfy the candid, impartial public of the entire errone- 
ousness of all these representations. 

That we may present this matter in a clear light before 
-the public mind, our inquiries upon these several points 
will come up in the following order : — Did the town, or 
even the remonstrants, attempt any such precautions re- 
specting exchanges, as Mr. Butler represents ? Did Mr. 
Howe make a promise or pledge himself in any way to 
the town, or to any body of men, before his ordination, 
that he would exchange with any class of ministers, liber- 
al or orthodox ? And even if it could be shown that he 
did make such a promise, can he be proved guilty of ever 
breaking that promise, or even of neglecting it, by the 
proper application of the rules of ministerial courtesy ? 

Turning our attention to the first point of inquiry, does 
it appear that the town, as a precautionary measure, at the 
time of Mr. Howe's settlement, exacted the alleged pro- 
mise, or that the seventy-nine remonstrants opposed his 
settlement " solely from apprehensions respecting ex- 
changes 1 " We reply, it does not, but the contrary. 
There is good and satisfactory evidence, that this question 
of exchanges never had its origin among the people of this 
town ; it sprung up wholly independent of them, in the 
ordaining council. Not the least evidence appears from 
all the documents in relation to Mr. Howe's call and set- 
tlement, nor from the subsequent transactions of the town, 
touching Mr. Howe's connection with it, nor from any of 
the communications now extant, which passed between 
him and the disaffected among his people subsequently on 



12 

the subject of exchanges, to show that the people ever 
thought of this matter, until it was suggested to their 
minds by certain men on the council, styling themselves 
" liberal." The people of this place are wholly indebted 
to " the liberal minded " part of that council for this 
" bone of contention ." We have searched in vain for the 
first proof that the people started this question. We have 
looked through all the recorded transactions of the town 
concerning Mr. Howe's call and settlement, and the sub- 
sequent action of the town, while an opposing class of men 
were agitating, agitating, agitating, until they finally 
revolutionized the primitive religious order of the town. 
This order of men, at one time, had an article inserted in 
a warrant for a town meeting, ' To see if Mr. Howe had 
complied with the terms of his engagement with the 
town, or fulfilled the reasonable expectations at the time 
of his settlement,' — or something to this import, but the 
town at once dismissed the article. There was not a 
shadow to support such an imputation. Mr. Howe, in his 
answer to the people's invitation, makes not the faintest 
allusion to any such agreement or expectation concerning 
exchanges. 

The famous remonstrance of the seventy-nine, of which 
so much account has been made of late, and which Mr. 
Butler affirms was got up " solely from apprehensions re- 
specting exchanges" and which was withdrawn with so 
much satisfaction, when, as he affirms, Mr. Howe made 
his " promise," it appears was not handed in to the coun- 
cil till after the usual examination of the candidate, and 
this xohole matter of exchanges had been disposed of there. 
And when it was presented, at that late hour, to the great 
surprise of the council, as they were about to assign the 
parts for the public service, there is no evidence that it 
made the slightest allusion to the subject of exchanges, 
but its ill-timed objections to the ordination were based 
wholly upon other considerations. We have inquired for 
this important document, but our search has been in vain ; 



13 

we presume it is not in existence. We have been par- 
ticularly desirous to find it, for we are confident it would 
maintain a saddening silence about Mr. Howe's pulpit ex- 
changes or any 'fears respecting them. 7 We should like to 
print it, with all the names, the manner, and the time of 
their being obtained. All the incidents might be matters 
of interest. Mr. Butler declares them to have been " legal 
voters," and we are aware that he is a lawyer. But if it 
were "pertinent," we might ask him, whether young 
men, fresh from another State, are " legal voters " in this ? 
Such, at least, was one of the seventy-nine. This 
is a matter of certainty. One of the men, whose zeal 
to procure " signers" kept his eyes waking some nights 
previous to the ordination, chanced, that year, to be both 
constable and collector, and one of his arguments to per- 
suade men was, " If you will not sign, / will distress you 
for those rates." The widow is now living, who says 
she heard that man offer this threat, as an argument, to 
induce her own husband to sign said remonstrance. Now, 
how much importance ought to be attached to a document 
of this character, got up in this way ? We leave it for 
wise men to judge. We must say, Mr. Butler evinces a 
surprising readiness to avail himself of all such helps, 
while he is as surprisingly unsuccessful in finding counter 
testimony. The following is an instance. The friends 
of the established order of the town, and of Mr. Howe, 
learning only at a late hour, the day before the ordination, 
the designs of the opposers, so secret had they been in 
their operations, got up a counter petition in favor of Mr. 
Howe's ordination, and secured to it, in the few hours 
left them, one hundred and forty-four names of " legal 
voters " in the town, which paper was lodged in the 
hands of the church committee, and when the remon- 
strance was handed in to the council, this petition was 
put in, to counteract its influence. This important fact 
entirely escaped Mr. Butler's notice. 

That this late hour was the time of presenting these 



14 

papers, and that the examination, and all questioning of 
the candidate for ordination had closed previously, appears 
from a variety of evidence. So far as any thing can be 
learned from the minutes of the council, attested by the 
scribe, they favor this view of the subject. The scribe 
of an ecclesiastical council, if he is well instructed in his 
duty, notes things in the order in which they occur in 
council. In this document the usual order of examina- 
tion, even to Mr, Howe's views of religious doctrine, is 
minuted. Then, it is said, " Several questions were 
proposed to the candidate." As this is all the question- 
ing of the candidate mentioned, we are left to infer, 
that the questioning respecting indiscriminate exchanges 
was herein embraced, especially as the testimony, yet 
to be introduced, confirms this view. The minutes 
then notice both the papers, already described, and 
say, " After due deliberation, it was voted, that these 
papers be placed in the hands of those who presented 
them respectively." What this " deliberation " was, may 
hereafter appear. " It was then unanimously voted, that 
— the council are ready to proceed to ordination." 

The Rev. George Fisher, of Harvard, who was on the 
council says : 

"I am sure, that the remonstrance against Mr. Howe's settlement 
was not presented till the council had nearly or quite completed their 
business. Mr. Howe was not questioned about exchanges or any 
thing else after the remonstrance was presented. Drs. Ripley and 
Abbot seemed surprised and sorry at its being presented, and went 
out to confer with the committee of the remonstrants and to settle the 
matter with them." 

This, doubtless, was the " deliberation " referred to in 
the records of the scribe. It seems the council were just 
ready to close up their business, and enter upon the pub- 
lic services of the occasion, when this obstacle of a re- 
monstrance, or " monster," as its authors then styled it, 
was thrown in their way. It was soon removed, how- 
ever, by the influence of a counter petition, containing 
nearly twice as many names, and by the moderator's 



15 

withdrawing, in connection with his liberal friend, and 
conferring with the remonstrants upon the propriety of 
their taking back their paper. What arguments they 
used, or what promises they made, we are left to conjec- 
ture. We know that the said paper went, whence it 
came, and we see, too, that Mr. Butler is wrong in saying, 
that, upon the presentation of .this paper, and its subject 
matter, Mr. Howe " was freely and fully interrogated " 
about exchanges "by the council," and that upon his 
giving certain " assurances," " the remonstrants were 
satisfied, and withdrew all objections." 

~Mr. Breck, before quoted, and who acted as committee 
of the church before the council, states his views as fol- 
lows: 

" I have read, with deep attention, the history of" &c. — " I am 
grieved to find some things recorded in this book, which must go down 
to posterity, not exactly in accordance with facts, according to my un- 
derstanding of the matter. I refer to that portion of it in particular, 
relating to the settlement of Rev. Mr. Howe. On page 322, Mr. 
Howe is accused of violating his ' promise,' and other statements are 
made, which do not agree with my understanding of the matter. I 
was present before the council, as one of the committee from the 
church, and was a minute observer of all that was said and done. I 
feel it my duty to give my testimony in the case, not only in reference 
to the character of my deceased friend, Mr. Howe, but a duty I owe 
to his family, the church, and the public at large. What I say now, I 
shall be willing to say upon my solemn oath, if necessary. 

"I remember distinctly the remonstrance, signed by seventy- nine, 
against the ordination, and I remember, too, the petition signed by 
one hundred and forty or more, of the inhabitants of Pepperell, that 
the ordination might take place, which Mr. Butler seems to have for- 
gotten, in his history of the transaction. I presented this petition my- 
self. In the first place, I wish to say a few words in reference to this 
remonstrance. Mr. Butler says, 'In order to prevent all misunder- 
standing on that point, some of the legal voters, to the number of sev- 
enty-nine, signed a remonstrance against the ordination, solely from 
apprehensions respecting exchanges, and laid it before the council,' &c. 
Now the remonstrance said nothing about exchanges, or any fear re- 
specting them. What there might have been in the minds of the 
remonstrants, of course, I cannot say. The main point in the remon- 
strance, according to my remembrance, was, that the sense of the 
town was not fully taken at the town meeting, at the time they voted 
to give Mr. Howe a call, as not one-half of the voters were out. The 
remonstrants stated, that a majority of the town were opposed to the 
settlement of Mr. Howe, and this would appear to the council, when 
the doings of the town meeting were read, as the vote stood a little 
over seventy for Mr. Howe, and twenty against or thereabouts, whereas 



16 

there were seventy-nine who remonstrated. But when the petition, 
signed by more than one hundred and forty, was presented, the council 
were put right on this point. Mr. Howe had been examined, and ques- 
tioned, in every particular, previous to the presentation of the remon- 
strance and the petition." 

Thus we see, that the testimony of this responsible 
witness, whose character, we trust, no man will attempt to 
impeach, and who was present and witnessed all the doings 
of the council, as church committee, is in open conflict 
with Mr. Butler's statements. 

At the State Fast, either in the Spring of 1830 or 1831, 
probably the latter, while his difficulties with the town 
were pending, as his opposers were then attempting to 
make account of the infrequency of his exchanges with 
Unitarians, Mr. Howe preached a sermon to his people 
upon the merits of the controversy between "liberal 
Christians," so called, and evangelical Christians. In the 
latter part of this discourse, he explaines his own position 
on this subject, and corrects false impressions which 
might have been made respecting it. Alluding to this 
same point we are now considering, he says, — " The 
terms, 'engagement and agreement,' are used, as existing 
between the town and me on this subject," [of exchanges]. 
li But the proposals of this town were made to me with- 
out reference to this subject ; they were accepted without 
reference to this subject. The signatures, both for and 
against my ordination, were obtained without reference to 
it, and both presented to the council after the question of 
exchanges was dismissed. I am not aware, that I ever 
exchanged a word, or that one word ever passed between 
me and any individual of the town on the subject of ex- 
changes, before my ordination." Now, who can doubt 
that this is a true statement of the facts, as they existed ? 
Would Mr. Howe have stood up before the town, repre- 
sented in that congregation, and made statements which 
a score of men before him could and would have contra- 
dicted to his face, if they had known him to be falsifying ? 



17 

Would he have thus put a weapon into the hands of his 
active enemies, with which he must have known they 
could slay him ? Let him believe this, who never knew 
Mr. Howe better, than to be capable of thus wounding 
himself. 

In order to show where this perplexing question about 
exchanges originated, and who was responsible for it, we 
extract the following from this same sermon. " The eve- 
ning before my ordination, in a conversation with Drs. 
Abbot and Ripley, [both of the liberal party,] members 
of the council, among other things, it was remarked, 
that I should probably be questioned in the council on 
the subject of exchanges." Mr. Howe objected, that he 
could not answer such questions " without implying a 
pledge, which would deprive [him] of customary rights. 
They freely admitted it, and to avoid it, [this difficulty,] 
devised these methods" &c. We shall quote further, 
hereafter, from this interesting passage, for another pur- 
pose. Thus it is perfectly evident, what class of men 
originated this vexed question, — that the people of this 
town can have no credit at all for originality in this matter, 
however much has been attributed to a certain class of 
them. 

Certain witnesses from the council, called to testify in 
feehalf of " The church of the First Parish, in Pepperell" 
—Unitarian — affirm as follows. We quote only as relates 
to the point under consideration. Rev. Mr. Damon, scribe, 
says, " Mr. Howe was questioned in council, to this effect, 
perhaps in these very words." No suggestion is here, that 
the question of exchanges was urged upon the council by 
the people, or any portion of them. To this he could not 
testify. The next witness is Rev. Dr. Thayer of Lancas- 
ter. What does he say ? " At the ordination of Mr. 
Howe, and knowing that he had received his theological 
-education under direction of those who patronized the 
^exclusive" course, /proposed to him a question of this 
3 



13 

import ; May the liberal ministers rely on your exchanging 
with them? " Mr. Howe's answer was so satisfactory to 
him, he testifies, " that i" voted for his ordination " / — plain- 
ly indicating, that he should not have shown Mr. Howe 
this favor, but for the return favor of an exchange ! It was 
Dr. Thayer's knowledge of whence Mr. Howe came, then, 
rather than his knowledge of any fears of the people, that 
prompted his inquiries. There is one more witness still 
of this class. He uses some French in his haste ; but 
still, abating this from his testimony, we can understand 
it. He says, — " After the usual examination preparatory 
to ordination, Dr. Thayer and Mr. Damon said there 
was yet one point on which they wished to question the 
candidate, and hoped to receive a clear and explicit reply, 
— that was as to his future course of exchanges." Thus 
it was Dr. T., Mr. D., and others of the " liberal party ," on 
the council, and not the people, who concerned themselves 
with that, which belonged solely to Mr. Howe. Dr. Rip- 
ley gives some "impressions" upon this subject, but his 
recollection does not seem to be distinct. These, how- 
ever, had evidently received a liberal coloring, since 
he was concerned with another liberal friend in introduc- 
ing this improper question, and in devising a plan where- 
by Mr. Howe might pass over the troublesome subject to 
their satisfaction, and still keep himself clear from the 
hamper of a pledge, which they professed not to desire to 
saddle upon him.* 

That there was no engagement of the kind in question, 

* For these several items of testimony, see the Report of a committee in 
1837, " At a special meeting of the First [Unitarian] Church of Christ in 
Pepperell, held at the house of Deacon John Walton, — chosen and instructed 
to examine the Records of the church, with a view to correct any misstate- 
ments," &c. This report, it seems, is appended to the second volume of the 
Church Records, as required " Corrigenda ct addenda.'''' This new order, hy 
a special privilege of law, in this State, it should be remembered, had come 
into possession of the Records of " The Church of Christ in Pepperell," and 
these Records, it seems, were not found adapted to their views and wants. 
This report, however, is an unjust reflection upon the fidelity of Mr. Howe, 
acting as clerk of the church. There is no doubt, that he recorded the 
transactions of the church, as they occurred, and that the Record gives a fair 
history of the times, as far as it goes. 



19 

with the town, or any part of the people, is further evident 
from this fact. In the year 1828, and onward, measures 
Were entered upon by the same party that originally 
opposed Mr. Howe's settlement, looking evidently to a 
disruption of the union. To this effect, their most hope- 
ful means seem to have been to agitate the question of 
exchanges. The town granted them a committee, to 
confer with Mr. Howe on the subject of exchanging with 
"liberal ministers;" but in the whole correspondence 
upon this subject, now extant, and in the hands of the 
committee, and in the report this committee made of their 
inquiries to the town, there is no allusion whatever to any 
such stipulation, condition, or even expectation, concerning 
exchanges. They reported, " First, that Mr. Howe 
claims, as a right incident to his office, as pastor, the privi- 
lege of exercising his own discretion in relation to ex- 
changes." There are two other points in this report — 
and they, with the above, constitute the whole report — 
which we shall make use of in another place. This 
" right," claimed by Mr. Howe, this committee did not 
attempt to controvert ; neither do they hint at any circum- 
stance to disparage this right. Would they not have done 
it, at that time, if they knew of any thing of this kind ? 
Of this committee, James Lewis, Esq., was chairman. 
With him were associated four others, three of whom 
never disguised their strong opposition to Mr. Howe.* 

Thus it is clear, to a demonstration, that the town 
neither exacted, nor thought of any such promise, when 
Mr. Howe was invited to become its minister ; — that " the 
remonstrance of the seventy-nine " made no allusion to it, 
but was based upon other grounds ; — and that this re- 
quiring of " assurances," as to a particular course of min- 
isterial exchanges, as a preliminary to ordination — a thing 
unheard of among evangelical ministers — originated with 
the so called " liberal men " on the council. Some, styling 

* See Town Records, Vol. IV. p. 257. 



20 

themselves - £ liberal." originated the question in secret 
conclave: "other such," in the council, held up before 
the youthful candidate, in terror em. the bug-bear, that they 
might not proceed to ordain him. unless he would commit 
himself to their notions of things, But he was not intim- 
idated; as we shall see. by this implied threat. He had 
nothing to fear, as there was a decided majority oi Ortho- 
dox men on the council, who regarded this meddlesome 
business as illiberal, discourteous, and out of place alto- 
gether. Besides, he knew that the religious part of the 
community generally, and a large majority of the town. 
li earnestly desired his ordination." 

We come now to the second point of inquiry. Did 
Mr. Howe ever make a promise, or give any pledge to any 
party concerned, that he would exchange with "liberal 
clergymen." or even with any class of ministers? He 
never did. as is already evident, unless to his ordaining 
council. The " liberal" members, it seems, were ex- 
tremely desirous of committing him to a specific course. 
Did they succeed in their endeavors ? We shall see. 
Here we will first let Air. Howe speak for himself, though 
his released spirit is now "where the wicked cease from 
troubling, 5 ' rapt in more blissful service. 

When the committee, granted to the disaffected by the 
town, to confer with him on the subject of exchanges, 
were to report, May 5. 1525. Mr. Howe, as it appears, pre- 
pared himself with notes to guide his remarks, and went 
before the town, to explain his principles and his course 
on the subject of exchanges. These notes we have in 
his own hand-writing. He had then been between five 
and six years minister of the place. In these notes he 
says, — " I have had no intention, under the present circum- 
stances of the town, to be exclusive in Boy exchanges. 
I have, as yet. declined no out. 1 know not that I shall 
decline any one. Ytt. you will understand that it is my 



21 

privilege to do it, if, in the exercise of my diswetion, I 
think proper so to do." Thus we see, that Mr. Howe re- 
garded an indiscriminate course of exchanges with Con- 
gregational ministers, a concession on his part, rather than 
a matter of obligation. He proceeds thus. " That part 
of the council, at my ordination, who differed from me in 
sentiment, wished to be satisfied that I should not be ex- 
clusive in my exchanges, on the ground of difference of 
sentiment. They were satisfied that I should not. But 
all of you who were present in that council, will recollect 
that I distinctly said to the council, I do not ask you to 
ordain me on condition that I shall not enjoy the same 
privileges which you all enjoy ; neither can i here give 
a pledge, which will allow my people to say, if hereafter 
I see jit to decline any individual, that i had forfeited 
my pledge. l No, no ; we do not expect it, 1 was the imme- 
diate reply," from the liberal party. 

It does not appear that the council generally, not even 
the "liberal" part of it, required of Mr. Howe a promise, 
or 'pledge, to indiscriminate ministerial intercourse ; yet, 
there were a few, as we have already seen, and shall see, 
whose zeal for their cause got the better of their discre- 
tion and liberality, and led them to push this matter quite 
strenuously. As further explanatory of this whole matter, 
Mr. Howe says in his Fast sermon, already referred to, — 

" The evening before my ordination, in a conversation with Drs. 
Abbot and Ripley, members of the council, among other things, it 
was remarked that I should probably be questioned in the council on 
the subject of exchanges. I replied that I should be happy to exchange 
with them, but as I was acquainted with no others of the liberal party, 
it would be improper for me to speak decisively respecting them ; also 
it would be difficult for me to answer such questions in the council, 
without implying a. pledge, which would deprive me of customary rights. 
They freely admitted it, and to avoid it, [even the implying of a pledge 
or promise,} devised these methods, that I might reply to the question 
when asked, that I should be willing to exchange ivith the members of the 
council, as far as i was acquainted with them. Or, that I might 
name three or four of the council, and include them, [Drs. Abbot and 
Ripley — liberal men,] among the number with whom I should be happy 
to exchange. I gave these answers in substance, and the member who 
put them was satisfied. The scribe of the council, not being aware of 



22 

my unwillingness to give a pledge, pressed the question further. This 
led to further remarks, which drew from me the declaration, I do not 
ask this council to ordain me on condition that I shall not enjoy the 
same rights which you all enjoy. Xeither can I here give a pledge, 
ivhich will allow my people to say, if hereafter I see ft to decline any in- 
dividual, 1 had forfeited my pledge." 

This narration explains the whole matter of the origin 
and the nature of what passed in the council on the sub- 
ject of exchanges. It shows, that there was no promise 
or pledge of any kind concerning exchanges given. 
Mr. Howe positively declined committing himself, and in 
order to avoid it, he followed the course which his liberal 
friends devised for Mm, and only expressed, as they de- 
sired, his willingness to exchange with those whose senti- 
ments he thought he understood ; namely, Drs. Abbot and 
Ripley, whom, he says afterwards, as we shall presently 
see, he understood " to hold the doctrine of the Atone- 
ment, and other important doctrines, since discarded from 
the liberal system." We know that ridicule has been 
copiously poured upon this explanation, as though here 
was a distinction without a difference. Now if this be an 
artifice, it was devised by the " liberal party." We allow 
others to judge. But we envy not that man's perspicuity 
and power of discrimination, who can discern no difference 
between a man's saying, with his present views and knowl- 
edge, he is willing to pursue a certain prescribed course at 
the present time, and his saying that he positively promises 
or pledges himself to pursue that course for an indefinite 
future. In the first instance, should he for a reason satis- 
factory to himself, cease at any time to follow in that 
course, would he violate any promise? The case is so 
plain, it needs no answer, nor any illustration ; and that 
man's metaphysics must be of a peculiar cast, who con- 
founds these two cases. Common men see the difference, 
and practise upon it in the daily business of life. 

To confirm Mr. Howe's own statements upon this point, 
we here introduce the following certificates, obtained by 
him from members of the council, while his difficulties 



23 

with the town were pending. He secured them, to refute 
the charge of breaking an alleged promise, made to the 
council, which the opposition then were charging against 
him. We copy from the original manuscripts. 

Tyngshoro\ April 23, 1830. 
Rev. James Howe, 

As a member of the ecclesiastical council, assembled at Pepperell, 
for your ordination, I do this moment recollect your prudent refusal to 
give a pledge for future indiscriminate exchanges, and that you re- 
served to yourself the liberty and privileges, which ministers claim 
and have a right to enjoy, and I do think, that without any liability to 
censure, you have a full right to exchange when, and with whom you 
please. 

From your friend and brother in the gospel, 

Nathaniel Lawrence. 

This may certify whom it may concern, — That the Rev. James 
Howe, when examined by the council convened for his ordination, an- 
swered the questions relative to exchanges with ministers in regular 
standing, that he did not wish to entangle himself by any pledge ; but 
claimed the right, which the gentlemen of the council exercised, of 
judging concerning expediency and propriety. 

David Palmer. 

Toivnsend, April 28, 1830. 

Rev. James Howe, 

Dear Sir : — I was a member of the council, at your ordination, and 
distinctly recollect, that you gave no pledge on the subject of ministe- 
rial exchanges ; though you observed that your views were such, that 
you should then have no objections to exchange with those members 
of the council with whom you were acquainted. You insisted on en- 
joying the same privilege with your brethren in the ministry, viz., to 
regulate your exchanges according to your own discretion and sense 
of duty. Yours, &c. 

John M. Putnam. 

Ashhy, June 19, 1830. 

The following is from Rev. Mr. Smith, of Hollis. It is 
without date, but it was doubtless procured at the same 
time with the others. 

Whom it may concern, — I certify, that having been one of the coun- 
cil to ordain Rev. James Howe, of Pepperell, I well remember, that 
although he did consent to exchange with those members of the coun- 
cil with whom he was acquainted, yet he refused to pledge himself to 
exchange indiscriminately with ministers, but reserved the right to 
determine his own exchanges, as duty should require. To this the 
council gave full consent, and said they would do the same. 

Eli Smith. 



24 

Mlford, May 1, 1830. 
I was a member of the council, at the ordination of Rev. Mr. Howe, 
of Pepperell. I recollect when he was pressed by some of the council, 
respecting his exchanging with clergymen of liberal sentiments, that 
he did not consent to pledge himself to comply with their wishes, but 
claimed the same privilege with his brethren in the ministry, in respect 
to exchanges, 

HuMrHRET Moore. 

Harvard, April 29, 1830. 
Brother Howe, — In relation to what occurred before your ordain- 
ing council on the subject of exchanges, — you distinctly said, that 
while you did not know that you should object to exchanging with the 
members of the council, so far as you tvas then acquainted with them, 
yet you could not give any pledge respecting exchanges, which would 
deprive you of the control over your pulpit, claimed and enjoyed by 
other ministers. Yours affectionately, 

George Fisher. 

The above certificates, which so clearly and unitedly 
exculpate the late pastor of this church from the unright- 
eous charge of perfidy, published against him recently by 
his enemies, were happily discovered among his papers 
after the publication of these calumnies. They seem to 
have been providentially preserved, to redress a most fla- 
grant wrong done to his good name. They confirm his 
own account of this matter, and " lift his head up above 
his enemies round about." 

It may be well to add to the above certificates, the fol- 
lowing, obtained by a member of the committee. 

South Merrimack, March 8, 1848. 
Having been a member of the council, at the ordination of Rev. 
James Howe, in Pepperell, and having read the certificates obtained 
from members of that council by Mr. Howe, showing that he gave no 
pledge to the council, as to his future ministerial exchanges, I can 
certify that what is contained in them to this effect is true. 

Samuel H. Tolman. 

Here then are seven clergymen, who were upon that 
council, and witnessed all that passed, and every one de- 
clares that, when Mr. Howe was questioned upon his in- 
tended course of exchanges, he refused all promises and 
pledges, and reserved his proper rights in common with 
his brethren. He was willing to acknowledge, and did 



25 

unhesitatingly, as some of these witnesses certify, express 
the liberality of his feelings, but he could not be enticed, 
nor drawn, nor frightened any further. 

We have one other item of testimony, which will com- 
plete our proof upon the present point. It is from Joseph 
Breck, Esq., merchant, of Boston, then a member of this 
church, and acting as committee in its behalf before the 
ordaining council, as before stated. He says : 

"I was present before the council, as one of the committee from the 

church, and was a minute observer of all that was said and done. 

There came up a discussion upon exchanges, which occupied some 
time, and I began to think the ordination would not take place, as Mr. 
Howe would not give a pledge, to exchange with all the members of 
the council convened, but would only signify his willingness to ex- 
change with such men as Drs. Abbot and Ripley, as he then under- 
stood their sentiments. This was all the council could draw from him, 
by way of promise or pledge, notwithstanding they brought all their 
force against him, for a long time. It appeared to me, at the time, 
that the liberals were very illiberal, in bearing down so long and hard, 
as they did upon Mr. Howe. B.ather than pledge himself, Mr. Howe 
preferred that the ordination should not take place." 

Do not these various items of testimony make suffi- 
ciently clear this whole matter ? There is a substantial 
agreement between them all, from beginning to end. 
They discover a natural desire and course of procedure 
on the part of a youthful candidate for the solemn office 
of a Christian minister, in the trying circumstances in 
which Mr. Howe was placed, when about to enter upon 
his work among a people divided in religions sentiment. 
He was always a man of truly liberal feeling. He u un- 
equivocally," as he confesses, expressed, this liberality of 
feeling before his ordaining council. He wished to ad- 
vance, as a Christian, and a minister, in the matter of con- 
ciliation and courtesy, as far as a good conscience, and the 
fear of God would permit. This he appears ever to have 
done, both before the council, and in his subsequent 
course. Yet, while some few on that council, styling 
themselves, " liberal ministers," did a thing which they 
ought to have blushed ever to mention ; — that is, tried 
4 



26 

to extort as a condition of ordination, a vow from him, 
that he would exchange with them, and those like 
them, during his future ministry — for how else could he 
become " a promise-breaker? " — still he seems to have 
stood firm for his conceded rights and privileges ; and he 
declared to them, that he would rather forego their official 
services, than grant their desire. 

From these papers, furnishing this testimony, it appears 
still further evident, that this question of pledging to in- 
discriminate exchanges, originated not with the people of 
this town, but with some of " the liberal ministers " on 
that council ; — that when Mr. Howe objected to answer- 
ing such questions, as it was stated to him would proba- 
bly be put to him, because he would be likely to be mis- 
understood, and be thought to commit himself to a certain 
course of ministerial exchanges before his people, they 
themselves devised the plan for him to satisfy them, and 
still save himself. As a trusting youth, under the influ- 
ence of much older advisers, he gave the answers they 
put into his mouth. This satisfied them, but not some of 
the " liberal party," who were not in the secret of the 
plan devised by the liberal doctors. These others pushed 
him hard for a pledge to fellowship with Unitarians, or 
what would have amounted to the same, which thing 
they are now endeavoring to prove that he did do. This 
pushing of the question, drew from Mr. Howe the frank 
declaration, that rather than pledge himself to any such 
course, he should choose that the council would not or- 
dain him. 

And now, in view of all the evidence here disclosed as 
to the origin and responsibility of this vexed question, an 
instrument, it seems, constructed by " liberal ministers," 
by "liberal-minded men" employed in goading Mr. Howe, 
while living, that they might render his post an insuffer- 
able one, and with which " liberal men " have well nigh 
torn open his tomb, that they might enter and charge him 



27 

with perfidy, what shall we say of the following Note, 
penned by our historic author, and inserted at the bottom 
of his 322 page ? 

" Whether or not Mr. Howe adopted the least objectionable course, 
in the ' strait betwixt two,' into which he was driven, will, in men's 
judgment probably be decided differently ; by some in the affirmative, 
by others in the negative, according to their different estimation of 
justice and expediency. But either course would, in the minds of all 
honest, honorable, upright men and Christians, have been preferable to 
the mean and contemptible position in which his friends (if friends they 
can be called} have, since his death, endeavored to place him. In order to 
evade the reproach of being a promise-breaker, they have represented 
him as making a promise which he knew would be understood according 
to its express terms, in one manner, and by a secret, non-committal, men- 
tal evasion, reserving to himself the right to interpret it in another man- 
ner. See Rev. D. Andrews's Centennial Discourse, Note H." 

Upon this characteristic Note, we offer no comments. 
We leave others to imagine how Mr. Butler could stain 
so calm, so pure, and so dignified a subject as History, 
with a passage breathing such a spirit, and containing 
such ungracious epithets, as are here applied to some 
of the most reputable elders in the ministry of his 
own neighborhood. Candid, discerning and unpreju- 
diced men have read the Note referred to, as the 
ground of what Mr. Butler affirms, and say they can- 
not make out even the slightest justification for such a 
serious charge as he has brought against worthy clergy- 
men, who testify in that Note, as follows : that 'Mr. Howe 
expressed willingness to exchange with his ordaining 
council, as far as he was acquainted with them, but de- 
clined committing himself.' Another one says, twenty- 
five years after the event, ' according to my best recollec- 
tion, Mr. Howe was willing to exchange with the regular 
clergy of that region, but / did not understand that he 
'promised to exchange with Unitarians, and if he refused 
to do it, I do not think he violated truth or good faith.' 
We have given the entire substance of the representations 



28 

made in Note H, by those three " friends of Mr. Howe, if 
friends they can be called" to testify such things of him, 
as that he did not promise to exchange with Unitarians ! 
And here is all the support that Mr. Butler had, to 
found his strange assertions upon from that reference. 
We may here say, that when these clergymen were asked 
to testify for Mr. Howe, as in that Note, it was not known 
that the original certificates, already quoted, were extant. 
They were secured by Mr. Howe only a few years after 
the occasion to which they refer, when the remembrance 
of what then passed was fresh in the minds of the wit- 
nesses. 

With regard to this matter of exchanges, one more point 
remains to be considered, namely : — Suppose it could be 
shown, that Mr. Howe did commit himself to indiscrimi- 
nate exchanges, before his ordination ; was his subsequent 
course such, as, by the proper application of the rules of 
ministerial courtesy, to expose him to the charge of "pro- 
mise-breaker ? " We think it is evident it was not. No 
proof has reached our minds yet, to show the contrary of 
this conclusion. The rules of ministerial etiquette are 
understood to require reciprocal invitations for an inter- 
change of pulpit service. And, moreover, it is thought to 
belong not to the youthful stranger, but to his older 
neighbors in the ministry, to make the first advances for 
this exchange of service. Now, what was Mr. Howe's 
course, and the course of " liberal ministers " with him ? 
We shall first let him, though dead, speak for himself. 
In his notes of remarks made in town-meeting, doubtless 
May 5, 1828, as in these notes he speaks of then having 
been five years in the ministry, and refers to the article in 
the town-warrant at that time on the subject of " liberal 
exchanges," as the occasion of his remarks, he says : — 
" What has been my practice ? In little more than a year 



29 

from the time of my ordination, I, myself, applied to each 
and every member of the council, nearly in the order of 
their age, and with each and every member I exchanged. 
On a review of my exchanges, I obtain the following 
facts. I have made to that part of the council who differ- 
ed from me in sentiment, five times — or nearer that num- 
ber, than any other — as many applications for exchanges 
as I have received. I have declined no one." Of the 
wisdom or expediency of such a course, good men will 
form their own opinions. But it seems that during the 
first five years of Mr. Howe's ministry, the " liberal 
clergy " of this region left five-sixths of the work of ap- 
plying for an interchange of service, for Mr. Howe to per- 
form ! Surely this was not very liberal nor courteous. 
This does not evince a very strong desire to practise upon 
the principle they were so anxious to establish at the time 
of the ordination. Will some one insinuate, — " Perhaps 
Mr. Howe was obtrusive in the frequency of his applica- 
tions to liberal gentlemen?" Why then were the 
'-' liberal party " at home, at this very time, complaining 
of the infrequency of his exchanges with this very class 
of men ? 

The article in the town-warrant, already referred to, 
was as follows : " To see if the town will choose a com- 
mittee to confer with Rev. James Howe relative to his 
exchanging with all the neighboring ministers, of good 
standing, and who are termed liberal." Of the commit- 
tee, chosen pursuant to this article, James Lewis, Esq., 
was chairman. The first point in their report we have 
already given. We now put into our argument the re- 
maining two, to show how this liberal committee, opposed 
to Mr. Howe, understood this subject at that time. They 
reported, — '-• 2d. That the course adopted by him [Mr. 
Howe] is not exclusive : but lie feels himself at liberty, 
and is ready, to exchange with both classes of the clergy. 
3d. That although it is a fact, that the exchanges, for 



30 

some considerable time past, have been almost entirely with 
the Orthodox, Mr. Howe has, in one or more instances, 
made application for an exchange with Unitarian minis- 
ters, which it was not convenient for them, at the time, to 
accept ; and that he has, in no instance, refused an ap- 
plication FROM THEM."* 

It seems perfectly evident, then, that Mr. Howe's feel- 
ings were sufficiently liberal up to this point, and as evi- 
dent, that there was no very ardent desire felt on the part 
of liberal clergymen for this kind of interchange of ser- 
vice. How was it two or three years later, or near the 
time when things in the place were approaching a crisis ? 
In his Fast Sermon, preached at that time, Mr. Howe says 
to the people of the town, — " My course, during the first 
five years of my ministry, has been fully explained to you 
on a former occasion. All I need to say in regard to it 
now is, that it is precisely a continuation of the same 
course." And again he says, — " I never have declined 
them, [liberal clergymen,] nor omitted any thing which 
propriety required respecting exchanges." We see, then, 
that up to this late period in the controversy, Mr. Howe 
felt that, if there was a fault any where in relation to these 
exchanges, it was not on his part. Further to elucidate 
this point, we quote once more from Mr. Breck. " After 
Mr. Howe was settled, he did exchange with Unitarians, 
more or less. But it appeared that they were more afraid 
of his Orthodoxy, than he was of their Unitarianism. I 
will state one fact in relation to this matter. After the 
ordination, some time, Mr. Howe exchanged with Dr. 
Thayer, of Lancaster, by request of Mr. Howe. It was 
then for Dr. Thayer to make the next proposition, which 
was never done. Mr. Howe was the last man Dr. Thayer 
wished to have in his pulpit." And yet this was the very 
man who professed such solicitude for exchanges at the 

* Town Records, Vol. IV. p. 257. 



31 

time of the ordination, and whose vote on the question of 
ordaining, or not ordaining, turned upon the very small 
point of Mr. Howe's answer to this, his question, — "May 
the liberal ministers, as they are called, rely on your hold- 
ing intercourse with them in the way of exchanges ? " 
It would seem that no one, of the least discernment, need 
mistake, why all this show of solicitude and liberality 
concerning ministerial intercourse was paraded. Was not 
capital needed with which to gain the people over to a 
lax theology ? And was not this thought to be the most 
feasible method of making it ? We leave it for those con- 
versant with " liberal movements " to judge. 

Now having fully shown Mr. Howe's continued liberal- 
ity in the matter of free exchanges, we ought, in justice 
to the principles which guided his practice, to allow him 
to explain for himself. He says, in his Fast Sermon, as 
explanatory of his liberal course, " My opinions of the 
clergy of that party were formed principally from the 
gentlemen above alluded to, [Drs. Abbot and Ripley.] 
They were understood, at that time, to hold the doctrine 
of the atonement, and other important doctrines, which 
are now discarded from the liberal system. I could con- 
scientiously exchange with such men then, and can now. 
There has been no alteration in my views on that subject. 
I presumed favorably with regard to the other members 
of the council, and exchanged with them ; I never have 
declined them," &c. 

But though he never declined their applications, because 
he never was much troubled with them, yet it should be 
stated, that about this time, he began to cease soliciting 
these favors. This he might before have done in obe- 
dience to the rules of ministerial courtesy. But it seems 
he was not a stickler for these rules ; he obeyed, we trust, 
the higher dictates of conscience and duty. He says, in 
that important sermon, so frequently quoted ; " I am free 
to declare, that the developments which have been made 



32 

respecting the doctrinal views of the liberal party, have 
truly astonished and grieved me. If we may take their 
own language as evidence, we are warranted in saying, 
that their most distinguished writers avow the prominent 
tenet of Universalism ; they reject the Epistle to the He- 
brews, and entertain such views of inspiration generally, as 
virtually to destroy the divine authority of the Scripture 
revelation. I will frankly declare, that I cannot conscien- 
tiously exchange with men of such sentiments, nor does 
my engagement with you require it, nor duty permit it ; 
and I will indulge the hope, that few, if any of you, 
would wish it. You believe the Bible, the whole Bible, 
and you desire that it may be preached to you, plainly 
and faithfully, that you may be built up in the faith and 
holiness of the gospel ; and I am ready to make any sacri- 
fice in my power for your union and peace, for your pres- 
ent and future good." 

We have now disposed of the three points which we 
proposed to make subjects of inquiry in relation to what 
Mr. Butler so unhesitatingly charges against Mr. Howe. 
We leave this part of our assigned task to the judg- 
ment of all the candid, the impartial and the good, in 
whatever sect or station found. Possessed of an unbi- 
assed mind, we ask them to examine and decide whether 
they can now believe, that the dishonored and aspersed 
dead, ever laid himself under any such obligations to his 
people, as a condition of his settlement, or to those called 
to instate him in office, as a preliminary to their discharg- 
ing that duty, as have been so boldly charged to him. 
We ask them to say whether, in all charity, Mr. Howe 
was not liberal enough ; whether he did not sufficiently 
observe all rules of propriety, and of ministerial courtesy, 
even viewing him under such obligations, to escape the 
defaming charge of perfidy, after he has passed, lamented, 
to his grave, and can no longer defend himself? Are his 



33 

enemies justified in going, " with malice prepense," to 
his grave, and chiseling, as it were, upon the marble that 
gratitude and love have placed over it, " Promise- 
breaker " ? We speak as to wise men ; judge ye. 

We now pass to other matters in this singular chapter 
of history. It seems Mr. Howe could not satisfy the lib- 
eral party, even by ail the concessions he made, and the 
liberality he showed. For some reason, it seems, he was 
obliged to make much the greater share of applications for 
that species of ministerial interchange of service continu- 
ally demanded of him. This fact, together with another 
fact, that Unitarianism was gradually becoming more and 
more developed, as another gospel, than that which the 
fathers of this church received, and than which it appears 
Mr. Howe understood it to be, when he felt that he could 
fraternize it to some little extent, probably accounted for 
the growing infrequency of the required exchanges, till 
the long pursued end, — the ascendency of the " liberal 
party" — was consummated in May, 1831, by their carry- 
ing, in a small majority, a vote in town-meeting, couched 
in these terms ; — " Voted, To excuse Rev. James Howe 
from preaching six Sabbaths in the course of the ensuing 
year , and, permit the pulpit to be supplied on those Sab- 
baths by ministers of other denominations.'''' 

We feel called upon to correct a false impression, which 
may have been made, by the style in which Mr. Butler 
records this act, and the consequences proceeding from it. 
He says,— 

" This movement, Mr. Howe and a minority of the town, including a 
large majority of the members of the church, chose to consider an 
expulsion from the pulpit. They therefore withdrew and formed a 
separate religious society. The town became thus divided into two 
parishes, with less trouble and contention than has happened in many 
other towns in the country." 

There are a few things in this short extract worthy of 
notice. We think truth is deeply concerned in them. 
Let it be remembered, a historian is responsible for the 
5 



34 

general impression he conveys, as well as for the language 
he uses. Now we think such language as this ; "This 
movement, Mr. Howe and a minority of the town," &c, 
though there was, at the time, a mere nominal majority 
against him, is suited, we do not say designed, to make a 
false impression upon the uninformed, especially when 
taken in connection with the uniform manner in which Mr. 
Butler represents the balance of numbers and influence, as 
to the religious movements of the place. He suppresses all 
information as to the comparative size of the two congre- 
gations after the troubles and the division, upon which he 
is so careful to particularize in his peculiar way. He 
speaks of " the good people generally" as taking wise 
precautions to secure a liberal minister. He says upon 
Mr. Howe's choosing " to violate his promise," u his 
parishioners became dissatisfied" quite generally, the 
reader is led to suppose, as there is no intimation given to 
the contrary. There seems to be discoverable through- 
out, a willingness to allow the uninformed public to 
conclude that a mere faction adhered to the incumbent 
of the pastoral office, and supported him. He gives 
not the least intimation of the long trial of " the lib- 
eral party," of three years in continuance, to bring 
Mr. Howe and the town to their terms, or to separate 
him from the town. He hints not to the fact, that 
there were some six attempts made, before the end was 
accomplished ; but leaves his reader to suppose the end 
was gained at the first trial, in a very easy, quiet way, 
with very little " trouble and contention." Justice, there- 
fore, requires it should be known, that before the final act 
and the "expulsion from the pulpit," which rent the town, 
considered as a parish, there were some four several trials 
of strength on the subject of " liberal preaching," or some 
kindred topic, when the supporters of the hitherto estab- 
lished faith and order of the town had quite respectable 
majorities, and voted down the opposition to Mr. Howe 



35 

from the new sect which had developed itself in 
town. And it should be further known, that when 
the final deed was done of ejecting the incumbent from 
his lawful possession, by calling to their aid persons 
who would by no means have appeared natural in God's 
house on his own day, their majority was only sixteen. 
The vast majority — some three to one — of those in town 
sufficiently interested to visit any house of worship for 
religious purposes, were always the friends and supporters 
of Mr. Howe ; adhered to him in all the conflict he was 
called to pass through on account of his preaching the 
primitive and continued faith of this church ; went with 
him to the new sanctuary erected for him to occupy ; 
supported him till his death, and still wait on evangelical 
preaching. 

There is another noticeable phrase in this short para- 
graph — "This movement, Mr. Howe and a minority 
chose to consider an expulsion from the pulpit?'' Here we 
would ask even Mr. Butler himself — as he is a lawyer — 
how else " Mr. Howe and a minority" could consider it? 
Did not the laws of the State then, and do they not still, 
give a settled pastor the use and control of his pulpit, when- 
ever he would use it for the religious instruction of his 
people, and especially on the Sabbath ? Was not that 
vote of excusing the pastor, especially the subsequent ex- 
ecution of it, plainly a lawless and revolutionary act, 
although ." the good people of Pepperell generally" were 
concerned in it ? And did not the " liberal party" well 
understand, that they were in conflict with the law, as 
well as their minister's rights in these excusatory proceed- 
ings? Did not Mr. Howe fully acquaint them, that he 
considered the pulpit lawfully his, so long as his ministe- 
rial relation to the town continued, and that he felt it to 
be a solemn, sacred duty, to use it regularly, at the proper 
times, according to his solemn ordination vows? Here 
we insert the following correspondence. 



36 

Pepperell, May 31, 1830. 
Rev. James Howe, 

Dear Sir: — You are respectfully requested to inform the under- 
signed, a committee chosen by the liberal party to supply the pulpit 
in the meeting-house in said Pepperell, for six Sabbaths, whether you 
shall object to said committee's adopting measures to carry into full 
effect the votes of said town of Pepperell, which are copied below 
from the records of said town. 

With great respect, your ob't servants, 

John Walton, 
Artemas Hemenway, 
Luther Tarbell, Jr. 

To the above, the following reply was made, 

Pepperell, June 1, 1830. 

To a Committee, chosen by the liberal party, to supply the pulpit six Sabbaths, in the meet- 
ing-house in said Pepperell. 

Gentlemen: — In reply to your note of last eve, allow me respect- 
fully to state, that from the best information I have been able to obtain 
on the subject, I have been led to the conclusion, that the laws of this 
Commonwealth, both civil and ecclesiastical, allow to me the sole 
right of supplying the pulpit while I am the minister of the town, the 
vote to which you have referred notwithstanding. 

In this situation, with the kindest feelings towards yourselves, and 
those whom you represent, I have earnestly and prayerfully sought to 
know my duty. If the providence of God has placed me in the pulpit 
of this town, and given me the right of supplying it constantly accord- 
ing to my own discretion, can I consistently with my ordination vows, 
with fidelity to my divine Master, and the charge which he has com- 
mitted to me, voluntarily relinquish that right, and leave the pulpit to 
be supplied at the discretion of individuals who avowedly differ widely 
from me in their views of truth and duty, and thus open a door to 
measures destructive of order and the best interests of the town? I 
dare not do it. It would be a still wider departure from duty, than the 
submitting of exchanges to the discretion of individuals. My views 
on that subject you have already sought and received, and communi- 
cated them without any abatement to the town. 

You will, therefore, Gentlemen, distinctly understand, that I shall 
object to the supply of the pulpit, in pursuance of the votes to which 
you have referred, and shall feel compelled to regard any gentleman 
who shall occupy the pulpit without my consent, as disturbing or tres- 
passing upon the rights secured to me by the laws of the Common- 
wealth. With the best wishes for the peace and welfare of the town, 
and your own happiness, I am, gentlemen, 

Most respectfully, your ob't servant, 

James Howe. 

John Walton, Esq. 

Artemas Hemenway. 

Luther Tarbell, Jr. 

Mr. Howe communicated a like expression of his views 
on this subject to a similar committee one year afterwards, 



37 

when this same measure of wresting from him the pulpit, 
while he was still the lawful minister of the town, was 
pushed even to the execution, and likewise to two " liberal 
clergymen," who came, at different times, at the invitation 
of "the liberal party," to obtrude into a pulpit not lawfully 
theirs. 

And again, we would ask of Mr. Butler, in what possi- 
ble way could Mr. Howe consider this movement less than 
expulsion, when Sabbath morning, May 22, 1831, on 
going to the church to discharge his usual duty, he found 
the door sentinelled, saw in the hand of the guard the 
ensign of his authority, and heard words like these, — 
" You cannot enter here, to-day, Sir /" We regret, sin- 
cerely, the necessity of referring to such strange and law- 
less proceedings in our own town, but justice to the char- 
acter of the dead, of late most unrighteously assailed, 
demands the unwelcome service. None need dispute this 
fact, or doubt its truth, because the widow of that much 
injured man, then leaning upon his arm and witnessing the 
whole scene, is still living and testifies to its truth. The 
man who guarded the entrance to the church on that des- 
ecrated day, and uttered the repulsive words above, was 
soon, " by the grace of God," made an humble, penitent 
convert to the truth, and confessed to Mr. Howe his heart- 
felt sorrow for the part he was prompted and appointed to 
act on that memorable day. Mr. Howe had the unspeak- 
able pleasure of receiving him, as " a brand plucked out 
of the fire," into Christian communion and fellowship, 
and of seeing him ardently devoted to the support of 
that "faith which he once destroyed." They both have 
since hopefully died " the death of the righteous," and 
doubtless now unite in the true and more perfect sanctuary 
above, in commemorating " the adorable grace," that alike 
saved each of them. 

This paragraph is wisely fitted — we would not say 
intended — to give the reader the impression that the new 



38 

sect gained their triumph with very mild and honorable 
measures, while the way seems artfully prepared for the 
false inference that Mr. Howe and his friends were un- 
reasonable almost beyond pardon. Let it be remembered, 
our historian has already made the following representa- 
tions : — Mr. Howe was faithless to his promise, whereupon 
"his parishioners became dissatisfied, and communed with 
him in a friendly manner." He was unyielding, yea, 
obstinate ; " he could not be prevailed with to return to 
his promised course." Next, the liberal party succeeded 
in passing and executing a very mild vote, just excusing 
him for a few Sabbaths from preaching — just long enough 
for a pleasant respite from the exhaustion of previous 
labors — " whereupon," says this paragraph, as though they 
were expelled, Mr. Howe and his friends " withdrew," 
and "the town became thus divided, with less trouble and 
contention than has happened in many other towns." 

How easy it is to hang a beautiful surplice upon the 
angular joints and crooked limbs of an ugly man, and 
withal, to present to the unsuspecting beholder, quite a 
comely figure ! We care not now to inquire what excesses 
may have been practised in these " many other towns in 
the country," in gaining possession of the old churches, 
funds, sacred furniture, &c, for new purposes. If the 
friends of the primitive faith and established order of this 
place experienced less of them than some of their neigh- 
bors, we trust they were duly grateful for their happy ex- 
emption. But how the excusing of the lawful incumbent 
from his proper office in the old church here was effected, 
we have already seen. Previous measures belong to the 
same category. Here we are unwillingly constrained to 
bring out to the light recorded measures attempted for the 
express purpose, it would seem, of starving the man " into 
capitulation," and of degrading the meeting-house, sacred 
to the worship of God and the exposition of his word, to 
some lower service than the office of f bringing good 



39 

tidings of salvation and publishing peace ;' — measures 
which it were desirable might forever have remained 
darkened by the covers of the town records ; — but the 
enemies of a good man, a successful and approved min- 
ister of the Lord Jesus Christ, have compelled us to ex- 
onerate his name, so wantonly traduced, and to show 
that the fault was not all on his side and that of his 
friends. We quote from a town-warrant got up by " the 
liberal party," and acted upon in town-meeting, Sept. 20, 
1830. "Art. 5. To see if the town will direct the select- 
men and town treasurer to withhold the money raised to 
pay Rev. James Howe's salary from him, after the expi- 
ration of his services for the present year, ending in 
October next ;" that is, after one month from that time. 
" Art. 6. To see if the town will sell the pews in the 
meeting-house, belonging to said town, for the benefit of 
the town; or make any different appropriation of 

THEM."* 

To the honor of the town, the recorded disposition of 
these articles is " Voted to pass over. — Voted to pass over." 

These high-handed measures seem the more aggravated 
and unjustifiable, from the fact that they were wholly un- 
provoked by their designed victim. There was a straight 
and honorable course open before " the liberal party," 
either to convince and carry with them a majority, on the 
ground that the good of the town required their minister's 
dismission, or, if unable to do this, to withdraw, and like 
men, to assume the responsibility and expense of laying 
new foundations for themselves. Why, then, these un- 
justifiable measures ? As has been before shown, Mr. 
Howe had sacredly fulfilled all his engagements to the 
town. We have yet to learn that any one complained, 
that he did not discharge faithfully all his pastoral and 
parochial duties. There seems to have been no complaint 
against him in any particular, save the one implied in an 

* Town Records, Vol. IV. p. 303. 



40 

earnest attempt to prove him guilty of violating an obli- 
gation to exchange with Unitarians. In this, there was 
discouraging success. He triumphantly refuted the charge 
while living, and it was only renewed publicly when he 
had gone down to his grave ; and it might have been 
supposed that the evidence of his innocence had perished 
with his mortal body. Happily it had not. 

It is pertinent to remark here, that Mr. Howe never ob- 
jected to having his connection with the town dissolved, 
if the people so desired, or whenever it should be made 
to appear that the good of the town required it. In a 
letter to the chairman of the liberal committee, dated May 
19, 1831, he says : " Here permit me to remark, I became 
the minister of the town from a sense of duty. When it 
shall appear that the best interests of the town will be 
better promoted by the dissolution of the connection 
between us, I shall cheerfully relinquish a post which is 
held with so much solicitude." In a letter, dated June 
23, 1831, to the Rev. Dr. Bancroft, invited by " the liberal 
party " to preach for them, when they had gained the ex- 
cusing of their regular and lawful minister, after first re- 
peating the substance of the letter to the liberal commit- 
tee, already quoted, expressive of his duty and lawful 
rights, as he regarded them ; and after saying, " You will 
perceive, then, that my consent to your supplying my 
pulpit to-morrow has not been obtained ; and should you 
do it, you do it in violation of rights which I had been 
assured you respected :" he then says : u I have never ob- 
jected to a regular course, to effect a dissolution of my 
connection with the town. I have supposed this to be the 
proper measure for ' the liberal party ' to obtain the privi- 
leges they desire. Allow me further to state, that there 
have been six several trials, to ascertain whether the town 
would permit the pulpit to be supplied by other ministers. 
In four, out of the six, there were considerable majorities 
against it. In two, there were small majorities in favor 



41 

of it. Bat the friends of Orthodoxy, unwilling to per- 
petuate contention, have thought it expedient to erect a 
house of worship for themselves ; and, as soon as this can 
be completed, to leave the present one to be permanently 
enjoyed by their ' liberal ' friends ; and I had hoped that 
clergymen friendly to order and laiv, would forbear a 
little, to intrude upon the rights of another, until such a 
peaceful adjustment of our affairs. Most of all, am I un- 
willing to believe, that any one would occupy the pulpit 
of another, in violation of acknowledged rights, because he 
might hope to do it with impunity." But these latter 
considerations did not deter " liberal clergymen ' : — even 
such as Dr. Bancroft — from intruding upon " acknowl- 
edged rights." 

An honest inquirer may be prompted to ask, — Why did 
not "the liberal party " meet the difficulty in their way on 
the ground suggested, which none can doubt was the true 
and honorable course to be pursued ? Why did they not 
come up manly to the question, " Is it the pleasure of the 
town that Rev. J. Howe's ministerial connection with it 
should be longer continued?" He affirms he never ob- 
jected to such an issue, and further, were the way clear, 
and would duty permit, he would "cheerfully relinquish 
a post retained with so much solicitude." But with better- 
hopes of final success, it may be, it was thought fit to 
operate in another way. Were there not some minds that 
would not readily perceive, why a settled pastor should 
insist on the right, guarantied to him by the laws of the 
State, to control and supply his own pulpit so long as his 
ministerial connection continues ? In his so doing, might 
they not begin to think their minister unkind and obsti- 
nate ; and so, with their feelings chilled, though they 
could see no other fault, be prepared the better to be in- 
fluenced by the cry of " illiberality and exclusiveness," 
when he was influenced only by an irresistible sense of 
duty ? In those times, were not many gained over and 
6 



42 

induced to act with the new sect in some such plausible 
way as this, who, otherwise, might have remained satisfied 
with the old evangelical order of Puritanism and primitive 
Christianity? In those times, the new order, seeking as- 
cendency, seemed to have a morbid hankering after old 
meeting-houses, old puritanic communion plate, old church 
records, funds, and such like ; and the most hopeful meas- 
ures must be devised and prosecuted to gain these, because 
of their attractive force. Doubtless there were some slight 
influences of this kind — perhaps enough to change the 
balance — operating against Mr. Howe ; when, if the proper 
issue had been made, at the proper time, the persons in- 
fluenced thus might have acted in his favor. We know 
that several who were induced to operate against him, 
when the struggle about "liberal preaching" was pend- 
ing, afterwards repented, and came back to sit under his 
ministry, and thankfully enjoyed it. 

We now pass to notice a few other things in this eccle- 
siastical chapter, which would have been suffered to pass 
in silence, were it not for the previous necessity of cor- 
recting more important misrepresentations in this history, 
where character and truth are so deeply concerned. 
We had designed to notice Mr. Butler's seeming unfair- 
ness in devoting so much more of his attention to "liberal 
Christianity," and the justification of its ways, than to the 
main facts concerning evangelical religion in the place. 
An apparent example of this kind, is found on the 312 
and 313 pages of his book. Here he first devotes a whole 
page to the refitting and dedication of the Unitarian meet- 
ing-house, and then proceeds to speak of the withdrawing 
of " a large number of the inhabitants," — of their holding 
meetings elsewhere, — of their forming "The Evangelical 
Congregational Society," — of this society's building a 
meeting-house "in modern style, having a steeple and a 
clock," — and more than all, of the dedication, October 31, 



43 

1832 ; and compresses the whole into the pleasing com- 
pass of nine lines ! A most notable example of brevity, 
which reminds us of another author of his name, but per- 
haps of wider fame than our Mr. Butler is destined to 
gain by his sometimes expanded, and then contracted, 
history. But, on the whole, we find no disposition to 
complain. It might not have been so, if Mr. Butler, in 
his way, had undertaken an historical account of all these 
important transactions. Indeed, we should not have com- 
plained if he had found no place at all for us in such a book 
as his — " no, not so much as to set afoot on." Mr. Butler 
seems to have prepared his book for one class only in the 
community ; not for general reading and popularity. It 
was doubtless very pleasant for him to write the history 
of those with whom he agrees in sentiment, and very un- 
pleasant for him to have his thoughts and feelings disturbed 
by the intrusion of such unwelcome subjects, as the history 
of evangelical religion, and churches improper ; for these 
are quite a different thing from " the church proper— of the 
First Parish" in very many instances. These considera- 
tions should excuse brevity on his part, when treating 
upon such subjects, and the other side of history generally. 
But we pass over all these things ; neither lay we a med- 
dlesome finger upon those delicious morsels, which doubt- 
less Mr. Butler prepared expressly for others.* 

Near the close of this chapter he informs the public, 
that at the decease of the late pastor, the present incum- 
bent became " sole pastor " of " The Evangelical Congre- 
gational Society." And again, " without the necessary 
correction, the one hundredth anniversary of the organiza- 
tion of the first church " in this place was " noticed by 
the Evangelical Congregational Society." There seems 
to be throughout, something like a studied attempt to 
leave this church altogether in the back ground, with 
scarcely an admitted existence. He does, indeed, when 

* See History, p. 323. 



44 

noticing us, use the word church, in two places, where he 
could hardly force a passage without, as in the choice of 
pastor and deacons, officers peculiar to a church. Other- 
wise, he is silent as to the being of such a body. The few 
inorganic fragments, broken off from this church when it 
dissolved its connection with the town, consisting mainly 
of a very few sisters, and gathered up with others, and 
organized into a Unitarian church, September 4, 1832, he 
styles " the church proper." Of course he means to signify 
his opinion, that the two hundred or more credible mem- 
bers, who relinquished their connection with the town in a 
perfectly organic capacity, retaining the pastor and each 
of the deacons, constituted a church improper, if at all ; 
so that it is not so strange, that he refrains from speaking 
of what he seems to regard as an incongruous body, with 
7io right to be. 

But perhaps Mr. Butler meant to signify his ideas of a 
church only in the sense of civil law, recognizing no 
church, but in a civil sense. This is the more probable 
from the fact, that he speaks of " the first parish, and the 
church thereof ; " and again, in a kind of apostolic epistle 
which he has inserted in his book, it is written, " The 
church of the first parish send greeting,"* carrying the 
civil idea, or definition of a church, since the modern con- 
struction of law relative to church rights within our 
courts of justice. This idea of a church is, that it cannot 
exist without a parish, — that it is such a creature of 
the parish, as must be subservient to it, as the less to 
the greater, and that the parish, in the loss or defect 
of a church, has the power and right to create one.f 
If this was Mr. Butler's intent, and not to unchurch 
us, as a religious and spiritual body, we shall not 
complain, only saying, that we admit no such idea 
of a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, as this. We go 

* See Hist. p. 323. 

\ See Mass. Term Reports, Vol. XVI. p. 488, and onward. 



45 

not to " the powers that be 11 here below, to ascertain 
what is the construction, the nature and the relations of a 
true church. We own no such connection between 
church and state, as this, — no such dependence of the one 
upon the other. We ground our claims to be the original 
church, wholly upon scriptural considerations, and the 
sanctions of ecclesiastical law, as we believe this obtain- 
ed in the primitive days of Christianity, and has generally 
obtained in our own country. We maintain, that a 
church is an independent body, as much so as a parish, 
and no more j that it is in no sense the creature of a parish, 
nor subject to it, because a parish, as such, can never 
create a church of Christ. It has the elements of exist- 
ence from a higher source, and of perpetuation wholly 
within itself. It is subject only to its Supreme Head, 
and its relation to a parish is only incidental and conven- 
tional, and in no way compromises its independence. 
This church rests its claim to be the true spiritual de- 
scendant of the first church formed in this place, upon two 
facts, which cannot be successfully controverted. It is 
the only union of visible believers, in a church relation, 
that has continuously preserved an organized form from 
the first in this place, which form consists of the proper and 
scriptural officers of a church. These are the organs of a 
church, and it has no others. The very few relics which 
the church left behind, when it left the town, by as free, 
as rightful and as scriptural an act as ever any church put 
forth, to say the least, were inorganic, and remained so 
some seven or eight months. We never have disputed 
their right to be a church, in their own form, but they are 
not the spiritual body that begun to be in 1747. We 
know that they were left in " possession " of its earthly 
habitation and its material contents, but the rights of the 
cuckoo are not different in this respect. The other cer- 
tain fact is, that this body, thus regularly perpetuated in 
an organic form, with a regular succession of spiritual 



46 

generations of believers, has, even from the very first, con- 
tinued to hold the same faith for substance of doctrine. It 
never has had any conflicting or contradictory creeds. At 
its origin, no formal creed was adopted for itself, separate 
from the churches generally ; for in those early times the 
Congregational churches were all understood to be united 
in faith under the " Assembly's Confession" adopted by 
them with so much unanimity at their Synod, held in 
Cambridge, and afterwards in Boston. The original cove- 
nant upon which the church was gathered, was not de- 
signed as a summary of Christian doctrine, though it is 
distinctly evangelical. For some reason, the second pas- 
tor displaced this for the covenant still used in this 
church, with some few additions. At the same time, he 
introduced the first formal creed into the church, aside 
from the general confession, considered in those times as 
applicable to all regular Congregational churches. The 
only two verbal formularies of faith which this church has 
ever adopted, are published together, and they are as 
harmonious in spirit, as they are within the same paper 
envelope. No man can point out any doctrinal conflict 
between the two. Whoever should undertake it, might 
undertake, with equal chance of success, to bring the 
"Apostles' Creed," and the " Thirty-nine Articles," into 
a state of antagonism. There is nothing asserted in the 
first, that is denied in the second, neither is there any 
thing asserted in the second, that is denied in the first, 
either directly or indirectly. The second perfectly con- 
tains the first, and more, but is no more in conflict with it, 
than Paid is with Jesus Christ. The first, or Groton creed 
— for it seems it was borrowed from Dr. Chaplin's church 
— was very brief. It contains nothing to which almost 
any religionist could not subscribe, except a Unitarian. 
The very first sentence repels and paralyzes him. It 
affirms nothing so distinctly as Trinitarianism, and con- 
demns nothing so outright as Unitarianism. The church 



47 

never laid aside the use of it because of unbelief in its 
generalities, but because it wanted a more specific formu- 
lary. Therefore, for such reasons as the above, we think 
we ought not to fall victims to Mr. Butler's "exclusive 
system," which seems to come very near unchurching all 
churches that are not " of the first parish" or some parish. 
Those churches that are of such origin, and in such sub- 
jection, we neither wish to unchurch, nor shall we ever 
controvert any claims that they may set up. 

One more topic remains, and we shall have done with 
this history. This is the singular manner in which it 
notices the centennial of this church. It is in harmony, 
however, with all Mr. Butler has to say of Mr. Howe and 
his friends subsequent to the division. He says : 

" The 29th day of January, 1847, being, * * * * without making 
the necessary correction for change of style, the one hundredth of the 
organization of the first church in Pepperell, was noticed by the 
Evangelical Congregational society as a festival. The pastor pro- 
nounced a discourse on the occasion, containing an interesting account 
of the first settlement of the place, the organization and progress of 
the church, the building of the meeting-houses, the ordination of min- 
isters, and their character and success in discharging their duties, 
down to the present time." 

Thus he seems to deny us the honor of a centennial 
altogether, because we did not, in his opinion, " make 
the necessary correction" so he calls it a "festival no- 
ticed " — not by any church, proper or improper — but 
"by the Evangelical Congregational Society." We regret 
that Mr. Butler was not more careful in testing his facts. 
Surely the feasting and the mirth, if there were such, are 
not to be laid to the account of the evangelical portion 
of the community. Neither was the society of which 
he speaks, an actor on that occasion. It was a church 
centennial, and instead of a " festival," there was the 
quiet, solemn and appropriate observance of the Lord's 
Supper. It was a religious exercise from the beginning 
to the end, confined to the appropriate reminiscences of a 
centennial. 



48 

We have only to say further, that we believe all, right- 
fully concerned in that interesting occasion, were perfectly 
satisfied, both with the time and observances of that day. 
In choosing their time for reasons that seemed good and 
satisfactory to themselves, without deeming it important to 
make this author's "necessary correction," they followed 
worthy examples. A church centennial in Dedham, and a 
town centennial celebration in Merrimack, New Hamp- 
shire, not to mention more, were held without correcting 
the style. The General Association of Massachusetts re- 
commended to the churches a time for a bi-centennial of 
the adoption of the Cambridge Platform, without this 
emendation of dates. Of what imaginable consequence is 
it, whether such a celebration be held according to civil or 
solar time ? By so doing, we are not aware that any 
offence was committed against the rules of Christian pro- 
priety, or morality. 

In the last paragraph of this chapter, the author falls 
into a slight mistake in informing the public that the 
present pastor of this church performed the immodest as 
well as mysterious act, in 1847, of describing his own 
character and success in the ministry, down to the present 
time, 1848! 

We now dismiss this history with a high value of its 
general worth, and instructive character, where its 
author's private views are not concerned. Other docu- 
ments are referred to in the vote calling for this Review, 
but the Committee are of opinion, that they neither need 
nor merit any attention whatever. Such is their char- 
acter, that they carry their own refutation with them 
wherever they may go among the candid and the truth 
loving. Their most serious attacks upon the character of 
the church and its reverend dead, have been already 
repelled in the foregoing Review. 

Thus the Committee have endeavored faithfully to dis- 
charge the most unwelcome duty assigned them, — that of 



49 

detecting the sophistry and the misrepresentations, and of 
refuting the unrighteous charges directed against the hon- 
ored dead of this church, and against the church itself. 
Most gladly would they have avoided the painful and 
mortifying task. Long and anxiously did they ponder 
the question, — Does duty require the truth to be spoken ? 
Does the honor of Christ's cause, and due respect for the 
lamented dead, demand the clearing away of these false 
imputations ? They have hesitated, delayed and prayed 
to be excused from so ungracious and humiliating a task, 
till justice seemed to look down from the skies, and the 
traduced and dishonored dead to start from the grave, and 
rebuke such doubts and delays, and to summon them to 
their assigned duty. We feared, also, that silence might 
be maturing a conviction in the public mind, that there 
might be truth in what has been so boldly and publicly 
said and repeated to the injury of official, departed worth. 
We therefore addressed ourselves to our allotted work. 
We have spoken plainly ; we believe, before God, truth- 
fully. We trust we have not compromised the sacred- 
ness and dignity of the Christian character in performing 
this our allotted work. It may give pain in some 
quarters. If so, let it be considered who furnished the 
necessity. We have not willingly afflicted nor grieved 
any one. If any feel the stroke, may it lead to due 
" carefulness." We have now spoken for the first time — 
this o?ice, for the consideration of the public, to disabuse 
candid minds that may have been led to false conclusions 
by what has been so long and so boldly asserted for truth. 
To the judgment of such minds, we commend our humble 
endeavors. If they are not based on truth and approved 
by justice, let this our work come to nought. 



Ms* 



> x»3> 

>■» - 



5> : 



3)» 

3 )>3 









> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 




> 

> > 

» > 
> > 


^ 


^ 




» ^*^ 












» 

3> 
» 

>-> 

> ^s> 

3> ~> 



>> :> > » > 



3) > 



:OBt 3> 






^S> 









i 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 • 



3> 

* JO "^ 

:> 2? > 
► j* > :» 



^y 



J^ ' 


> 




>> 


) ir>^ 


"^ 


>j> 


2> '- 


3£>j> 


J9» 


? 


3 


3> ;: 


»>^> 


1> 


J> 


:» 


j»x> 


J> , 


> 


3 


X> 


5>y> 


^ 


> 


:> 


^> > 


JOJ> 


^? ^ 


> 


3 


.» 


^^ 


5 3 




3 
3 


3D 


J»>3> 
353 


> ■ 


> 


_» 


J*J 


^L> 


> 1 


> 
> 


3» ' 

2> 




>J» 


i < 


» 


H> 


;£ 


>3> 


» j, 




^> 


^ ; 


»\^ ' 


? j- 






3 , 




? 


- 


3* 


:> 





: > > » 1 
$ > >J> r 

- > J . > > ;# 
■ > >>3J^ 

^ 3 V, ^ 



:fiSs>y2>3* 

3>38» 



3^ 

31> 



3*} > 



2*3 



^*>3 



3l> » 



» 3 



3>>»3 



>J>> 
^» 

~"*3 



^"^~>3 
^ 33> 






3j> 

3> 






^> 3) > 

3)3f 

»^ : 

J5>- UO 









> » > ^ 



>>tfoe> 



P 3 ^3^ 



3£> 3D> 



> > >^ - 

^ N ^3 -O 

^ ^' JP- 5 "^" 
>33 

>33 

^> ^ 18> ^> !> 3 

> -> >> > ^ ^ 



D3> • 

^> >> " 

x 3V-> T> " 

^ 03 » 




LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 




014 136 697 A 




